tv [untitled] February 22, 2012 6:00pm-6:30pm PST
the president came in and out without incident. there was a lot of work done by everybody to make sure that that happened. finally, today, we deputized another member of the san francisco police department. a 3-year-old springer spaniel that is operated by an officer. he has been responsible for the seizure of a 3.7 $5 million in narcotics related -- $3.75 million in ncnarcotics related funds. he wears his star proudly and that concludes my report. president mazzucco: i know that the new structure has been put
in place, and we are basically having to attack the mid with different entities in the police department -- tag-team it with different entities and the police department. what you mentioned earlier with crisis intervention, there was an issue where someone was killed in the city this week and nobody dialed 911 for quite some time. again, people saying that they hear these crimes all night long and nobody responded. unfortunately, we have another homicide. what are we going to do about that? people like you -- i was behind the chief and i was concerned. i saw an ambulance with the police chief driving off, it generally means an officer has been injured. he explained the story. it was somebody that should not have been released.
it is time to put the book back in the library. he was out in the middle of the road, and nobody dancing but the chief. what are we going to do about that situation? >> it goes back to the video that was aimed at bullying. someone has to call, someone is going to come. at the woman that saw the struggle, she was afraid for her own safety. unfortunately, we will never know if we could have saved the life of the person. we believe we have a lead on the case, we believe it was a robbery-homicide. once the officers are aware of the situation, they are operating almost beyond belief as far as the scale of professionalism, the knowledge of the neighborhoods, the players. in all honesty, we will take the
good luck we can take, too. it is easier the sooner we know, rather than coming in after the event was over. it is better than any intended victim. commissioner marshall: any questions for the chief? thank you. call item 2b, please. >> occ director's report. >> good evening president mazzucco. members of the audience. you have in your packets, citizen complaints report for january, 2012. and for comparison, january, 2011. i gave you these statistics so i will not repeat them. but i will discuss with you the occ outreach activity.
and adjudication of sustained complaints by the chief of police from january 1, 2012 through january 31. this month, the staff has participated in two outreach activities. two members staff the table at operation home was attacked and provided information to participants about the -- homeless connect and provided information to participants about the commission. students were completing their mediation training. they provided a volunteer mediators for the program at no cost to us. moving to adjudication of sustained complaints, the city charter provides for the occ to forward to the chief of police complaints in which it finds a
sustainable allegations for the adjudication on the imposition of discipline. this only applies to cases where i indicate that the discipline to be imposed in my judgment would not exceed 10 days of suspension. discipline in excess of 10 days of suspension up to and including termination are adjudicated by the police commission. on january 31, 2012, the chief adjudicated six cases investigated by the occ and determined by me to have sustainable allegations. he made the following findings and impose discipline on these cases. in the first case, it was neglect of duty sustained finding. the officer failed to enter an incident report for a complaint that was a salted and injured by a stranger -- assaulted and injured by a stranger. all six of these cases are
neglect of duty sustained finding. a member forgot a service revolver, ammunition, and handcuffs and a hotel room. the housekeeping staff observed the locked room safe and called hotel security. an engineer unlocked a safe and discovered the officer's loaded service revolvers, ammunition clip and handcuffs. the hotel contacted the officer at the officer made arrangements to have the equipment retrieved by a superior officer. the complaint also complained about the conduct in retrieving the weapon, but the conduct in forgetting his weapon and equipment was neglect of duty because he lost control of them when he checked out of the k hotel. it sustained a neglect of duty finding.
the chief found that the conduct of forgetting his equipment to be proper conduct. in the next case, another neglect of duty. an officer failed to log use of force even though the officer noted that the complaintant had an injury. the supervising sergeant failed to supervise the officer to ensure that the incident report was completed. the sergeant failed to enter the use of force logs. both officers were given a written reprimand. in this case, failure to block traffic stop data. the officer was suspended. in these failure to log data cases, the officer was a modest. the chief is looking at progressive discipline -- admonished. the chief is looking at
progressive discipline. there were violations in the past. an officer failed to prepare an incident report when the complaintant stated he wanted to press charges against another driver for road rage. another officer received a written reprimand. the concludes my report. commissioner turman: director hicks, i want to back up to the incident where the officer left his gun and clip in the safe. you found it was improper conduct and i am sure the chief did not find specifically that it was proper -- >> we found it was a sustainable allegation, the chief disagreed and found that it was proper conduct. the chief and i have had conversations about this and how we might approach in these kinds
of cases in the future. the chief and i have agreed that when the chief has a different finding that a sustained finding, prior to issuing his finding, he and i will have a conversation. >> in this instance, the complaintant was in the lobby and has no knowledge of what went on in the room with the safe and security that is total protocol. in the office are properly secured his weapon in his room -- the officer properly secured his weapon in his room before he left his room, consistent with our policies. the hotel, too, kep ttt the weapon safe. the officers said that he will give a superior officer -- if he
walked out with the gun in his hand, it up said the complaintant. where the finding has been if the superior had been in neglect of duty to properly secure the weapon while making it through a public lobby, i would have absolutely agreed with the occ . the officer that left the weapon in a secure the safe where the officer had only the combination, the save could only be accessed by hotel security, the officer being made aware of the fact that it was left behind the very next morning, within hours of checking out, the weapon was properly to remain in security or police custody. i find that that could happen to anybody at the officer acted responsibly.
the superior officers should have secured the weapon leaving the hotel. commissioner turman: and at the time that the officer lef t the gun, had he checked out? >> the answer is yes, and we have a fundamental disagreement about responsibility. the officer that check out was the only one that had the combination to that safe, but once one checks out, one no longer has access to the room. the officer forgot. a message that a proper conduct finding sense is that it is ok to forget that you have left your loaded weapon and your handgun un in a safe. my debate would not be over the level of discipline, but merely the finding that forgetting is proper conduct.
that is where the chief and i have a significant disagreement. again, no matter what the basis of the complaint may have been, our duty is to investigate the entire transaction. if we find that this is what occured, then we will investigate that and make the finding as we deem appropriate. commissioner turman: what investigation, action, or charges filed -- >> none. we found that the officers' conduct was proper conduct. we did not find that the superior officer's conduct was improper. commissioner slaughter: thank you.
respectfully, this is not a matter that needs to come before the commission. all of these issues, by definition, are matters that are handled at your level and that the -- at the chief's level. if there is a disagreement on a lengthy series of cases, you ought to bring them to us. we trust you and the chief to do your jobs, and we have reports to say that these statistics are going -- we as a commission, i don't think we will be here to or better who is right into is wrong. -- arbiter who is right and who is wrong. i appreciate your reports and generally, but i don't need and i don't think the condition -- commission needs a blow by blow for everything cents to achieve
that by definition doesn't come to the commission. i encourage you that we don't need that level of detail on the ten day or fewer issues. i don't think the commission should be in the position of deciding on an individual basis who is right and who is wrong. >> i think i stepped in front of commissioner kingsley. i would respectfully disagree, commissioner slaughter. as part of transparency, it is, by your very rules, that there should be reports to you on adjudicated complaints. that is what i have done. i have fulfilled my duty not only to the police commission but to the public so that they understand how cases are adjudicated. i don't disagree that when the
chief and i have this agreement, -- disagreemtn, thaent, that we necessarily try to determine who is right into is wrong. you don't have all the evidence before you, you don't have the recorded interviews, etc. it is my duty as director of the office of citizen complaints, pursuant to your rules, to indicate how cases are disposed of. while i do not have in front of me the rule, it does exist. commissioner slaughter: there is no obligation that we hear each and every case. the idea that we would spend this amount of time on this allegation, we all know we have
greater and more important disciplinary matters to attend to. it seems to me not to be the best way to be spending our time. commissioner kingsley: toi initially wanted to ask a question to the chief, but i would also like to respond to commissioner slaughter's comment. the first question, to tehe chief is, i'm wondering why the officer, when he was notified by the hotel personnel to come and retrieve his property, why he sent a supervising officer rather than picking it up himself. >> he immediately reported it and the officer offered so it would be faster.
commissioner kingsley: is their original order or something that would require the officer -- there an order or something that would require the officer to do this? >> he was doing it out of due diligence. commissioner kingsley: thank you. commissioner slaughter, i understand your comment. i think when we get these reports, the commission gets these reports, i believe this is one of the reports that we are obligated to hear. but if this commission feels otherwise, and if it is not something mandated by the charter or the code or something else, we have discretion to change what we hear if we want to use our time otherwise.
we can't necessarily discuss it tonight, but if you want to agendize it, we can do that. but before you respond, personally, in these instances with theoc occ reporting, i am not as interested in hearing how the cases that are sustained in the chief is an agreement -- in agreement. i am not suggesting that we tried try to retry the case or second guess your decisions, but i am interested in hearing where there is a difference of opinion and the reasons on both sides. commissioner slaughter: i was suggesting that the level that we not get a blow by blow case by case description of the reports. the level in the past has been appropriate, but we don't need to stand here and spend time on
allegations that warrant less than ten days and go blow by blow on the facts of tehe case. commissioner dejesus: id do appreciate the report, it is not only for us, but for the public. it is informational -- you can't hear me? my microphone is off. it is educational and a teaching experience for the public. many younger patrol officers can hear it if they are there and they listen to it. they get an idea of this is alan officer messe -- how an officer messed up. check the safe when you leave. this is the first time i have haeard of a conflict.
my natural curiosity was, how was it resolved? how does it go down and the bucks? is there a procedure for that? -- in the books? is there a procedure for that? >> it is the chief's decision. he is the disciplinarian. it is our job to find facts, make findings, and explain those findings to the chief. again, if you demand that i no longer provide you with detailed reports of adjudication, i would say that you would veer far field from other civilian oversight agencies, and what they do.
while it may be a waste of some people's time, this is my work. a majority of the cases, thankfully, for the police department, are not at the level of more than 10 days of suspension. i am in full agreement that is a teachable moment for officers to understand that this is what can happen if x occurs. commissioner dejesus: commissioner slaughter did not mean to indicate you were wasting our time. it is something we should talk about and he is entitled to his opinion, but i don't think he meant to disparage the director in any way. i have heard from senior officers during roll call, the user id to discuss -- they used to discuss how the officers got in trouble so the younger people can learn.
i don't know if they do that anymore, so this is one opportunity to reach the rank and file. i appreciate that and i learned something here tonight. when you have a dispute, you should bring it to our attention. commissioner turman: i guess between what has been said by a commissionkcommissioner kingsled commissioner dejesus, it's been said. i don't think commissioner slaughter was saying in any way that what we do is not important, but some details are not always necessary. that is his opinion. i think we need to know and learn from when there is a difference of opinion and it helps to guide us and the public. you did not ask us to decide anything and we didn't decide
anything. i wanted to know information. >> the good news is that the two professionals we have hired, they've had one this agreement. we hire them because of their expertise and they're going to be disagreements. they will continue to work together. i think that the discussion is healthy and it is good to have. we weren't asked to take sides on this this evening. at the end of the day, if this is the only disagreement, we are doing really well. i think we should move on to the next item, i don't think there is a suggestion that we should not have these reports. call the next item. or, continue. >> that concludes my report. [laughter] president mazzucco: any
questions for director hicks? line item 3c. >> commission reports. president mazzucco: i have some items to report. on friday, myself and commissioner chan met with the youth commission to discuss the march 7 joint commission meetings. commander veal was there, and captain para was there. the captain had some great ideas. we are getting ready for the presentation with the police department will talk about what they have available for kids and the kids will say what they are looking for. we talked about everything from brain development to interactions with police, resource officers, so we will have the police department present how they talk to kids,
how they talked of the mediation process, a general order of kids being transported to stations. at the end of the day, it was a healthy conversation and it will be a good meeting. on thursday, i met with the early intervention team. i met with some k urgencyil -- sergeants kilshaw and tane. another leading created by this commission, -- meeting created by this commission, whether it is a complaint, a car accident, all of these factors they look at. if an officer is having issues -- there are very few that are having issues. sometimes these statistics show that occ cases are overy productive officers.
there are trends where certain locations will target officers with occ complaints. they tried to mitigate that saying it is not a stigma, looking at it to make sure things don't go bad. that was a great meeting there. talking about early intervention and crime. this weekend, i'm meeting with the pine lake park homeowners association to tell them what happens at the police commission. that is saturday night. any reports? silent, ok. move on to 3d. >> commission announcement and scheduling of the items identified for consideration at future commission meetings. >> the park district meeting
will be on that yuri 29, next wednesday, 6:00 p.m. -- february 29, next wednesday, 6:00 p.m. >> not 5:30? >> correct. >> we'll meet at gratin school. >> the location? >> gratin street. >> and we will hear from the new captain. he might be on a bicycle, who knows? next week. >> anything you would like to add to our agenda? commissioner kingsley: inspector monroe, do we have a community meeting scheduled for the end of march yet? our last meeting in march, the fourth meeting. >> not for the community, no.
nothing in march yet. we have some meetings lined up, but nothing scheduled. commissioner kingsley: nothing is for sure yet. thank you. commissioner dejesus: i see we have an aclu lettrer here. you might have discussed this already, but i was wondering the status of this. it was asking certain questions that i thought to have you were meeting on -- two of you were meeting on. >> i have not seen this before now. commissioner turman and i will take it up outside the meeting. commissioner dejesus: i thought you had it before then. president mazzucco: we just received it today. commissioner dejesus: the only thing i noticed is asking for us if we are going to support the
changes. if you talk about that, let us know. commissioner turman: i will meet with commissioner slaughter and get back to the commission. president mazzucco: any public comment? line items 3b, c, or d. >> thank you for letting me speak once again. very briefly, i am happy to waste my time on this. i technically agree with the chief of police that if they are going to discuss issues, this is an open format. under the sunshine act, the public needs to know. i don't think they need to know 30 hours or 30 minutes in this type of discovery, but they need to know what goes on in a police complaint. you spent a couple minutes on